1. Benedict Coffin DfE SEND Unit NatSIP working day 4 October 2016
The role of the LA in a changing landscape The White Paper: ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ and its implications for special educational needs and disabilities
Benedict Coffin
DfE SEND Unit
NatSIP working day 4 October 2016

2. Context: the role of the LA in SEND
Local authorities conduct statutory education, health and care (EHC) assessments, which may produce an ECH plan.
EHC plans should be based on a young person’s aspirations; reflect their needs; set outcomes; and specify provision.
High needs budgets allow LAs to fund special educational provision.
Health and social care services must secure relevant provision if set out in an EHC plan.
Duty for local authorities, health and social care services to jointly commission education, health and care provision for children and young people with SEN or disabilities (both with and without EHC plans).

3. What the White Paper says
The Schools White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere set out a clear vision for the local authority in relation to special educational needs (4.77, pp.69-70):
“Ensuring every child has a school place: including that there are sufficient school, special school and alternative provision places to meet demand. Local authorities will retain responsibility for this in a fully academised system. The government will support them by continuing to provide substantial funding to allow them to deliver sufficient places, as well as by creating places through the free schools programme…”
“Ensuring the needs of vulnerable pupils are met: including identifying, assessing and making provision for children with special educational needs and disability and looked after children; promoting school attendance and tackling persistent absence; ensuring that alternative provision is available for headteachers to commission for children and young people excluded from school or otherwise unable to attend a mainstream school…”
“Acting as champions for all parents and families: including listening to and promoting the needs of parents, children and the local community – working alongside elected mayors; supporting parents in navigating the system through a continuing role in admissions; supporting children, young people and parents to navigate local SEND arrangements (such as providing information, advice and support) and engaging them in designing and co-producing local SEND policies, service commissioning and delivery; and championing high standards locally for all pupils, for example, by encouraging high performing providers to establish new school places and where necessary calling for action from the Regional Schools Commissioner to tackle underperformance.”

4. Challenges for LAs

5. Challenges for local authorities
Financial pressures:
Existing pressure on high needs budgets.
Requests for high needs spend in early years and
Potential impact of national funding formulae for schools and high needs.
Pressure on wider LA budgets (e.g. social care, transport).
Challenge of joint commissioning with health and social care.
Pressures on places:
Demand for limited number of special school places.
Potential impact of post-16 area reviews on availability of FE provision.
Challenge for LAs developing provision in an increasingly autonomous school system.
Challenges in making placements:
Importance of parental preference in individual placements.
Statutory right to Tribunal appeal over placements.
Importance of early investment:
Good preparation for adulthood for children and young people with SEN aged 0-25 will save on whole-life health and care costs.

6. Parents’ and young people’s preference
Children & Families Act 2015 gives parents and young people the right to request that a specific educational institution* (or type of institution*) be named in their EHC plan.
The LA must name the institution unless it is:
Unsuitable for their age, ability, aptitude or special educational need; or
Incompatible with efficient use of resources or education of others.
If an institution is named on an EHC plan, the LA must secure a place and the institution must admit.
Right to appeal to Tribunal over the institution named.
* Institutions covered: maintained school or Academy, maintained special school, non-maintained special school, FE college or institution (independent special school or specialist post-16 institution) on the section 41 list.
Does not cover independent providers which are not on the s41 list.

7. High needs national funding formula
In March 2016 we consulted on the principles for national funding formulae for schools and high needs. However, introducing a national funding formula will present challenges for LAs.
A significant proportion of high needs spend goes on places for children and young people, often for several years.
Sudden changes to high needs budgets could prompt local authorities to make disruptive changes to the support for the most vulnerable children and young people.
We therefore consulted on including an element of spending on SEN in the national formula for at least the next five years.
This will give local authorities time to plan and implement infrastructure and other changes in future provision.
Introducing a ‘pure’ national funding formula for schools would limit LAs’ scope to move funding within the DSG.
Currently many LAs move funding between the schools block and the high needs block or vice versa.
LAs will need to find alternative ways to manage costs.

8. Implications of Academisation
The move towards all schools becoming Academies will mean a significant change in the way local authorities operate:
LAs will become commissioners of provision rather than responsible for maintaining schools.
LAs will need to co-ordinate services and provision across a diverse range of autonomous providers (early years settings, Academies and free schools, FE colleges, independent / non-maintained providers).
LAs will need to develop new relationships with the schools (i.e. Academies and free schools) in their area.
This will be particularly important for special schools, since places are principally filled by LAs naming the school on an EHC plan, and agreeing ‘top-up’ funding from the high needs budget.
We might expect LAs’ future relationships with Academies to mirror existing relationships with independent and non-maintained provision.
Potentially greater use of commissioning and procurement approaches.
Blurring the concept of “out of area” provision.

9. High needs placements - current
“Out of county” provision
Academies / free schools (mainstream & special) – in a different LA
LA “in county” provision
Mainstream LA schools, able to meet needs (with top-up funding)
Mainstream academies, able to meet needs (with top-up funding)
LA special schools – in a different LA
Local authority responsible for EHC assessment, placement & funding
General FE colleges
Independent special schools
LA Special schools – generic or specific needs
Special academies & free schools – generic or specific needs
Special post-16 institutions
LA mainstream schools with special units / resourced provision
Non maintained special schools
Mainstream academies, with special units / resourced provision AP

10. High needs placements – future?
Provision
Mainstream academies, able to meet needs (with top-up funding)
strategic commissioner
General FE colleges
managing the ‘market’
Local authority responsible for EHC assessment, placement & funding
Independent special schools
Special academies & free schools – generic or specific needs
co-ordinating and brokering
Special post-16 institutions
championing parents and young people
Non maintained special schools
Mainstream academies, with special units / resourced provision AP

11. How LAs might manage the pressures
Local authorities will need to keep their special educational provision under review, to ensure:
Sufficient places to meet the current and anticipated range of SEN, and
That these places offer quality and value for money.
This follows existing duties to keep the Local Offer under review:
4.19 “Local authorities must keep their educational and training provision and social care provision under review and this includes the sufficiency of that provision. When considering any reorganisation of SEN provision decision makers must make clear how they are satisfied that the proposed alternative arrangements are likely to lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of educational provision for children with SEN.”

12. Next steps for NatSIP and the SI sector

14. What could the SI sector contribute?
77% of pupils with hearing or visual impairment are in mainstream schools (including resourced provision/SEN units).
How could NatSIP and the SI sector support teachers and SENCOs in mainstream schools to offer more effective provision?
How could NatSIP and the SI sector work with an increasingly diverse and school-led system?
How could NatSIP and the SI sector support early years settings and FE colleges?
Around 25% of pupils with hearing or visual impairment are in special schools (maintained and non-maintained).
How could NatSIP and the SI sector support special schools?
How could NatSIP and the SI sector support LAs in meeting low-incidence / high-complexity needs?
What staff and expertise do specialist providers have that could be marketed to LAs, MATs and other providers?

15. Opportunities: NatSIP
What can NatSIP do?
Engaging and brokering relationships with LAs, Regional School Commissioners, post-16 area reviews?
Developing a clear set of messages for SI providers to use?
Developing an evidence base for SI pedagogy?
Working with other stakeholder organisations (NASS, Natspec) on partnerships between specialist and non-specialist provision? …